Morphemics

Hi Kevin,

I have followed your discussion with Clifton with much interest. I think the one major difference between you and Clifton is that he was a Protestant and hence understands Protestant theology. You might argue the degree to which he understands it, but the fact remains that he is familiar with the protestant viewpoint. From your writings and from your own admission, I gather that you are very unfamiliar with Orthodox theology. Especially where it differs from Protestant theology. I see this especially in your musing about salvation in your last paragraph of this posting.

I disagree with you that the burden of proof is on Clifton. He is simply stating the ancient church's stance. He has changed nothing. He is the defendant. As you say above, "the burden of proof is on the one who wants to make the additions". Since Holy Tradition was a part of Christianity since the start, the burden of proof lies with you and the Protestants.

"Whereas I limit this infallibility to Scripture itself"...

If Scripture alone is infallible, how can we have over 8,000 (some say 20,000) denominations in the USA who disagree about what Scripture says infallibly? This doesn't make sense to me. And, ultimately, it is the reason I have left Protestanism this past year. I could no longer hold such an inconsistant position.

For I found that I had to agree that the only difference between the ECUSA folks who found it "Scriptural" to ordain and allow 'marriage' of homosexuals and of those who didn't was their hermaneutic. And neither side had any way to make their arguement for or against that point other than saying "my interpretation is more obviously right". Even those who held the "traditional" position, by being "outside" the traditional church and rejecting much of what she has to say, have already "bought into" the mode of reasoning which allowed those in favor of the non-traditional position to hold that position at all, and hence have no way to 'infallibly' say much of anything.

Both arguements were equally convincing to me, once away from the Church against which Christ claims "the gates of Hades shall not prevail." For me there is no longer any "here I stand, I can do no other", but rather "here I submit and follow".

The point of infallibility of the Church is not provable through Scripture alone, in my own humble opinion. But it has become clear to me that if there is no infallible Church, if Christ's promise to the Church has failed, then there is no longer any point in remaining Christian at all, partly because of the implication that He can't keep His promises. It means also that there is no definative meaning (interpretation) to Scripture, as the revisionist postmodernist's nihilistic take on the Scriptures seems to point out when it says "it is just one narrative among many".

Okay. Now I'm rambling. Pax, out.

George - Thank you, both for your interest and for your stand alongside Clifton. While I think I understand your objections, I don't completely agree. For one thing, there is no single Protestant viewpoint to be understood. Clifton has had personal experience with (at least) two branches within Protestantism and has adequately demonstrated an understanding of them. I have seen very little evidence, if any, that he understands the theology of the Reformation. The differences within Protestantism can be just as great, if not greater, than those among Protestantism and other branches of Christianity. The position that I have been taking in this discussion is somewhat different than that in similar discussions. Usually, these are set in terms of Reformed theology vs. those forms of Protestantism that are no longer Reformed; my most consistent frame of reference for the other side being churches like the independant Baptists in which I was raised. This time, I find it necessary to affirm the underlying unity among [most] Protestants as a counterpoint to Clifton's assertion that the Orthodox Church is the only true church. At the same time, while defending Protestantism in general, I am arguing from a Reformed perspective anad have not hesitiated to state relevant disagreements with other branches within Protestantism. I am defending their status as churches, as being a true part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. But I do not believe that this unity implies that there cannot be some serious differences on doctrinal points that are not immediately concerned with status in Christ.

I am unfamiliar with Orthodox theology; although, I don't know that I would say very unfamiliar. Certainly not in those areas on which there is agreement between the Orthodox and the rest of Christianity (and I note that you did say something to this effect). As to my musing about salvation, I do not need to know anything about another religion, whether it be within or outside of Christianity, to know that a doctrine of salvation, which is not by grace alone, through faith alone, and by the work of Christ alone, is, ulitmately, fatal. Having said this, here's where I need to be careful and where a greater knowledge of opposing sides would be helpful. Is it the case that there really is soteriological heresy, or is it the case that the way in which basic biblical truth is being expressed is being misunderstood on my part? For instance, I expressed concern over the description on Clifton's blog. It looks like he's struggling in order to be saved; which, if so, is a clear example of salvation by adding works. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that the force of the statement is that he struggles on account of being saved. In this case, the focus is on sanctification, which is, properly speaking, a synergistic operation.

As to the burden of proof, you're disagreement is begging the question. That he is "simply stating the ancient church's stance" and "has changed nothing" is what is in dispute. The debate is whether Holy Tradition, as understood by the Orthodox, really was a part of Christianity from the start. Our common ground will have to be found elsewhere. This is in Scripture. We both accept it is a rule of faith and practice, but I argue that it is the only binding rule. It may be that you are right about the church. However, burden of proof cannot be based upon what is in dispute, but upon what is not in dispute. In this case, whether it truly belongs there as part of a single fabric or whether it is the result of years of man made deviations, all tradition, the content of which is not derived from Scripture, that stands as a rule of faith and practice is, practically speaking, an addition. I disagree that Clifton is the defendant. My contributions to this discussion have always been with the intent of defending sola scriptura, which, even if expressed in Reformation terms, I, and most of my Protestant brothers, take to be the position of the apostolic church.

Hi John- The infallibility of Scripture means that it is incapable of error in everything that it was intended to teach. If you think of it in terms of Scripture communicating with its readers, infallibility has to do with the transmission. It does not, however, affect the reception. It is entirely possible for an infallible transmission to be scrambled in the reception. The idea is not that Scripture infallibly gets across its message. I suspect that your concern is actually more along the lines of, "What good is an infallible Scripture if it is not infallibly understood?" If so, then it is stated too strongly, but I understand the concern. First, I would reduce the understanding or interpretation from infallible to inerrant. Not incapable of error; simply, without error. Next, I would reduce this doctrinal inerrancy to the substance of things essential to salvation. Different wordings, along with possible misunderstandings between denominations, do not necesarily translate into altogether different doctrines. Disagreement is not always radical disagreement. Often, it is a matter of nuance and emphasis. Furthermore, although each text of Scripture cannot have multiple and contrary meanings, when we start moving away from unifying essentials, the point is more likely obedience to what is heard than it is doctrinal purity.

I would agree that the difference between those in the ECUSA was hermeneutical, but I wouldn't stop there. I would want to know what factors were infuencing their hermeneutics. I challenge anyone who affirms a Scriptural basis for ecclesiastical homosexual marriage and ordination to also affirm that, even as they understand him, Paul was absolutely right in all that he said about marriage, ordination, and homosexuality. I don't see it happening. Instead, the task of hermeneutics will be seen to have gone beyond Scriptural interpretation and into deciding what should count as Scripture. Paul's views would be a product of his first century prejudice and would have no business even being in the Word of God. The net result is that they cannot affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, much less its infallibility. It also means that the dispute within the ECUSA is no argument against Scriptural infallibility. It is more of an argument against abandoning Scriptural inerrancy. I wouldn't say that everyone on the opposing side did affirm Scriptural infallibiliy; however, they could have without changing their position. The sides taken in that debate are not so equally convincing once you consider that one side would be incapable of affirming Scriptural inerrancy.

Your allusion to Luther presents a false dichotomy. He said, ""Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." It wasn't a matter of submission vs. non-submission, but of which is the higher authority- the church or the Word of God to which the church is called to submit. Note that he did not say, "I am captive to my conscience," but, "my conscience is captive to the Word of God." This is not a matter of placing conscience over against submission, but a matter of to which authority the conscience will submit.

I am in complete agreement with this statement, " if Christ's promise to the Church has failed, then there is no longer any point in remaining Christian at all, partly because of the implication that He can't keep His promises." However, I disagree that the lack of an infallible Church along with the existence of various, even contrary, interpretations on secondary issues is any indication that Christ's promise to the church has failed. And don't confuse "meaning" with "interpretation". The infallibility of Scripture along with the intent of its divine Author requires that it have a definitive meaning. But, unless it is possible for any two people to understand something in precisely the same way, then there is no need, or even possibility, of a definitive interpretation. Which is not at all to say that anything goes. There is, rather, a definitive range of interpretations, more or less narrow depending upon the centrality of the doctrine in question.

Finally, there is no need to worry that anyone who affirms the infallibility of Scripture but not of the church is going to say that Scripture "is just one narrative among many". The doctrine of Scriptural infallibility is of a piece with the conviction that its authority is universal and that its Author is able to make its message understood across any narrative boundaries. Even so, we do live in a society that accepts postmodern thought, so it is a good idea to recognize what many people's conception of Scripture will be apart from the work of the Holy Spirit.

I have given my final reply here.

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for responding to my comments. I am confused though by your reply. If it is the common Reformation theology that you are using as a buttress for your defense against Clifton's arguments, then what do you use against the arguments that originate from modern Protestant theologies, for example the Post-Modern movement (which, in some branches accepts Holy Tradition, even if a distorted view of it). Would you not then assert that they have the burden of proof since you are relying on a much older, established, sound theology that can be historically verified? Not only that, but are you not, in a way, perpetuating that which you are arguing against by accepting the “traditions” of the Reformers (i.e. the 5 Solas, rejection of eucharistic transubstantiation, the rejection of some sacraments, rejection of traditional fasting, etc.)?

You are correct, salvation is through grace. “Good works do not produce salvation, but salvation produces good works. We are not saved because of good works, but we are saved for good works." (Fr. Anthony Coniaris). But to the Orthodox this does not mean through grace alone. Grace is the means of salvation, but that does not mean that we are once and for all saved. Because grace is available, does not mean that it unilaterally saves us. To say this is to relegate free-will to a single act, the moment of accepting grace, but does our free-will stop there? The Orthodox do not believe in instant salvation as Luther did. The major difference, and this is the chasm, is that Luther defines justification as imputed righteousness. Hence a person is “saved” and assured of his/her place in heaven just by accepting Christ as Lord and Saviour. This does bring up some interesting questions, such as eternal security (unless you are a Calvinist), but that is another topic. The Orthodox believe that justification and sanctification are a process and do not place much, if any, emphasis on the differentiation between them. So someone becomes more justified as they become more sanctified. A synergistic relationship between God and man, theosis.

I think Clifton is referring to Philippinans 2:12b (“Work out your salvation with fear and trembling”) when he says “one man's struggle for the salvation of his soul”, but I guess he would have to answer that himself.

As for Clifton's claim that the Orthodox is the only true church, I think it comes down to this: Do you believe in the unity (not commonality) of the visible church or only in the unity of the invisible church? The Orthodox believe it must be both, since the church is the body of Christ, it must reflect the incarnational nature of Christ and be united in both the physical (visible) and the spiritual (invisible).

If you are interested, here is a good article that summarizing the soteriology of the Orthodox Church.

You say the burden of proof is on Clifton because he is positing a standard in addition to the agreed-upon standard - i.e. Scripture. Except Scripture is not an agreed upon standard here. It is one of the things in dispute. In case you hadn't noticed, you and Clifton have radically different ideas of what, exactly, Scripture is. For him, Scripture is part of Tradition, which he also describes as the Life of the Church. For you, however, it is the encapsulation of revelation and therefore the seed of that Life (perhaps I am misinterpreting both of you.

Thus, the burden of proof is as much upon you to demonstrate that your view of the nature of Scripture is correct as it is on him to demonstrate his view of Tradition.

(For what it's worth, I'm more sympathetic with Clifton's view. After all, the revelation is not simply the Scriptures but Christ Himself, who dwells among us and lives within us. In Him, all the glory of the Godhead is made manifest. There is no need to posit the mediation of the Scriptures in the economy of grace. They are necessary because they play such a central role in the life Christ lives in His Spouse which life is made complete and perfect with the Resurrection, which is prior to the Scriptures, and which does not cease when they come into being. Your cessationism seems awfully parsimonious for a description of the economy of divine grace, which is by definition gratuitous and overflowing.)

If I may, Andrew makes a point here that I elaborate on in my reply (linked in my comment above). That is to say, the burden of proof does not apply because, in point of fact, I do not posit Scripture alongside Tradition (or vice versa), which is what Kevin's argument demands. Granted we are both using Tradition in ways contrary to what the other is, so this may be part of the confusion. But it is a distinction I made in my very first reply to Kevin. I quote myself:

In other words, the ancient Church (and the present-day Church) had (and has) no need to place Tradition and Scripture side by side as though they are in opposition. Rather, Scripture is in whole part of the Tradition. It's not an either/or because we are not talking about two separate realities, but one single reality: Tradition. Scripture is a manifestation of the Tradition, and as such cannot contradict Tradition, nor Tradition Scripture.

The problem is when Christians try to excise Scripture from Tradition and interpret it outside of the Tradition. It is inevitable that the meaning of Scripture will then be distorted beyond, if you will, authorial (and Authorial) intent.

Thus, Kevin's whole point is in contention and is not, contra his claims, the undisputed point leaving me with the burden of proof.

I have stayed with this conversation so long as I have because it has been useful to show the logical collapse of Kevin's own view, but in reality he has not grapsed or dealt with my own contention which I have made from the beginning. And that is why I both deal with this problem at some length in my final reply and why that is my final reply.

George- I would argue with any theology, including those within Protestantism, from the point of view of my own theological perspective. It would be my intention that this perspective say no more and no less than is taught in Scripture and, to that end, I am willing to listen to and be taught by other Christian theologies. You speak of "the common Reformation theology." I don't know if this is what you have in mind, but Protestants do not hold to such a theology; only Reformed Protestants. It does not follow that because all Protestants can be traced historically to the Reformation that they all would have retained the theology of the Reformers. As to burden of proof, I suppose it would depend upon the specific situation. If an argument is within the Reformed tradition, then whoever is proposing a point that is different has the burden of proof. If I am debating with other Protestants, such as the Baptists that I left, then I don't hold them to the same standard. We both still agree that all matters should be decided from Scripture, but I can no longer assume certain common interpretations that they must overcome. Accepting the traditions of the Reformers is not at all inconsistent with my argument. I am not arguing against religious tradition considered in itself, but against religious tradition the propositional foundation of which is not found in Scripture. In the case of all of these Reformed traditions, we hold to them becuase we believe that these are what the Bible teaches.

I like the quote by Fr. Anthony Coniaris. The phrase "grace alone" does not mean that grace unilaterally saves us. If it did, then the phrases "faith alone" and "Christ alone," which also refer to salvation, would make no sense. All three are statements against any form of salvation by our own works. Salvation is according to works, but it is the work of Christ alone. Salvation is a gift, by grace and not of works. The two are set in contrast, if we have to work for our salvation, then it is no longer by grace. The work of Christ is the basis of our salvation; grace is the means of our salvation. God is able to give us this gift based upon what Christ has done. Both, the work of Christ and grace, are sufficient for their intended function. Few, if any, Christian theologies will deny that the work of Christ is necessary to salvation. The question, however, is whether it is enough. We are saved by grace through faith. This sola is also contrasted with works. Whereas grace is the means of our salvation, faith is the sole instrument whereby we are justified. The contrast is to the Roman sacramental system. In this, grace is infused by means of the sacraments. Those who have this grace are counted righteous in God's sight because, at the time, this happens to be the case. However, sin can eliminate this grace and, with it, one's righteous standing before God. Both grace and justification must be regained through the instrument of the sacraments. This constant dependence upon the sacraments, especially penance, as a means to keep regaining justifying grace is, in the end, just a form of salvation by our own works. We are saved by grace through faith. It is not of works "lest any man should boast." And so another of the five: soli Deo gloria. God is jealous and will share his glory with no one else. If salvation were according to our works, we would be able to boast and he would have to share. We will not be up in heaven singing the praises of God for doing the bulk of the redeeming. Sola scriptura safeguards our salvation. Scripture does not teach salvation by works. This is either imported by means of tradition that goes beyond Scripture, or by an improper interpretation of Scripture, both of which say what Scritpure does not. For those who believe that Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, we will modify, or even abandon, any belief that is reasonably shown to be in opposition to Scripture.

The kind of salvation you describe, a single moment of accepting grace, is not what the Reformed believe. It is, however, the majority report among Protestants. Within this view are at least three subdivisions: 1) Easy-believism. Say the sinners prayer and you're saved no matter how you decide to live afterward. 2) Lordship salvation. Say the prayer, accepting Jesus not only as Savior, but also as Lord... and really, really mean it. Subsequent non-repentant lifestyles are evidence that you didn't mean it. 3) Consistent Arminianism. These do not believe in eternal security. Grace actually comes as a result of the prayer; however, just as we have the free-will to accept this grace, we also have the free-will to give it back. But, like I said, the Reformed view isn't any one of these. First, there is the matter of the "instant salvation." We do believe that regeneration is instantantaneous, but, other than saying that it must precede faith, we really don't know when it occurs. One's awareness of this regeneration can be instantaneous, or it can occur over a process of time. It does not have to be concurrent with a conscience acceptance of grace. For one thing, properly speaking, initial grace cannot be accepted or rejected. This would be analogous to an infant being able to veto his conception before the fact. Grace is what causes regeneration.

Second, even though salvation is by faith (and grace) alone, it is not, as the Reformers said, by a faith that is alone. That is, if faith does not manifest itself in good works, then it was no true faith. The same Holy Spirit who regenerates us and causes us to respond in faith also brings about the desire to work that which is pleasing to God. This activity is a part of our new nature. We work because we have been declared righteous, because we are in union with Christ. We do not work in order to gain or even to retain this status. Good works are a necessary part of salvation in that salvation necessarily produces good works. They are not necessary in the sense that good works, other than those of Christ, could ever produce salvation. Also, you brought up the idea of free-will. Generally, the Reformed hold to a compatibilist notion of the will; i.e., the will is compatible with the sovereignty of God. In practical terms, we are always free to do as we please. We are always pleased to act in accordance with our nature. Since we are given a new nature upon being saved, this is the source of our desire to produce good works. The resistance comes because our old nature will not be taken away until we're in heaven.

Luther's definition of justification as imputed righteousness is set in contrast with the Roman belief in infused grace. The idea is that justification is a one time declaration of God. The Catholics claim that this is a legal fiction. If a person sins, then he is not actually righteous, so how can God say what isn't true? If justification is nothing more than a declaration, then they have a point. But it is not. This declaration is based on reality. It looks both forward and backward. It is the verdict of the final judgment made known now. God knows what he intends to do with us and the process whereby we will be sanctified. Early verdicts are guaranteed. It also looks back to our union with Christ in his death and resurrection. All penalties against our sin have been lifted because we have already been punished in the person of Christ. Sanctification is a synergistic process whereby we grow more and more into the nature of Christ and out of our old nature. Justification, however, is a verdict. There is no more or less about it. We are either declared guilty or not guilty- and the Judge doesn't change his mind.

Is the visible/invisible church distinction found within Orthodox theology, or are you just adopting Protestant terminology for the sake of argument? In any event, the Reformed do not associate these with physical and spiritual. If we look at the visible church, we certainly don't mean to suggest that we see a bunch of non-spiritual entities. And the invisible church is not so named because we cannot see its component parts. It is more the case that we cannot positively identify its parameters. The visible church consists of all those who profess Christ, along with their children. The invisible church consists of the total number of the elect, those who are actually in Christ; it is all those who are not making false professions. Both of these are ways of viewing the universal church. Locally and denominationally, the visible church is organized as an instituion with a particular authority structure. This structure is essential, especially in view of the ministering offices that God has ordained, the preaching of the Word and distribution of the Sacraments, and for a place to be called to corporate worship. But the organizational necessity should never be elevated over that which it is organizing. As to unity, this belongs to the invisible church (which isn't really "invisible") as it exists in its various denominational manifestations. There is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. This is indicative of the church. It is not an ideal that is broken by means of denominational differences. We all believe in the same Lord Jesus Christ. The faith here is saving faith, not all the accoutrements over which we may disagree. The one baptism refers to our common baptism into Christ. Whether by immersion or sprinkling, for infants or believers only, these disagreements cannot destroy what baptism is in itself. The unity of the faith does reflect the incarnational nature of Christ. It is all of the elect in their physical and spiritual wholeness enjoying union with Christ. Denominational difference do not destroy this unity. If one insists that this unity must be manifest in a single visible institution, then it must follow that no one else is a participant in the one Lord, one faith, or one baptism. Basically, any church that wishes to claim the title of the only true church must do one of two things. Either lower the importance of the church to a subsalvation status and then explain why anyone should care that it is the one true church; or, consistently reject those outside of this true church as being outside of the faith altogether. Unless we are all united in the body of Christ, we cannot all be in union with Christ himself.

"I am not arguing against religious tradition considered in itself, but against religious tradition the propositional foundation of which is not found in Scripture."

Again, I suggest that Christ, Himself, is the only proper "propositional foundation" in that He is the Word. The Scriptures may only be called the "word of God" analogically in that they are (to use a highly sophisticated Orthodox theological term) an icon of Christ. They image Christ to us and thus assist us to connect with Him and deepen our understanding of the Divine Mystery of the Word, but the connection between Christ and the Church is established in a final and total manner at the Cross, and the Scriptures add nothing to it. They merely enrich it and participate in it in a special way. Nothing can be called Christian which contradicts the Scriptures, but neither ought we say that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation, for only in Christ Himself can one find grace.

"God is jealous and will share his glory with no one else."

Then why did He share His image with us? And why did He take our image upon Himself - even the image of a slave? God is jealous, but He is jealous of Israel, His Bride, with whom He longs to share all His riches and all His Life. He is jealous of His glory for the same reason a father is jealous of his employment - it provides sustenance for his children.

"Few, if any, Christian theologies will deny that the work of Christ is necessary to salvation. The question, however, is whether it is enough. We are saved by grace through faith. This sola is also contrasted with works. Whereas grace is the means of our salvation, faith is the sole instrument whereby we are justified. The contrast is to the Roman sacramental system. In this, grace is infused by means of the sacraments. Those who have this grace are counted righteous in God's sight because, at the time, this happens to be the case. However, sin can eliminate this grace and, with it, one's righteous standing before God. Both grace and justification must be regained through the instrument of the sacraments. This constant dependence upon the sacraments, especially penance, as a means to keep regaining justifying grace is, in the end, just a form of salvation by our own works."

You misread the sacramental system. I suggest you consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the subject of grace and merit. In fact, Rome does not claim that anything may be added to the work of Christ. I suspect you will be skeptical of this, but if you are, remember you got on to Clifton for not taking your word for it that he was misrepresenting you. Take Rome's word for it, and take it under advice that you might be presenting false dichotomies.

Consider: Faith is, itself a work. Even bare belief is an action of the soul tied to the will. The Catholic idea is that, just as Christ gives us faith, so He gives us other works which bring us to salvation. We are not passive recipients of grace but neither does any part of salvation originate from us. We work towards our salvation, but the power to work, the will to work, and the completion of the work are all dependent not on ourselves but upon the Cross. Initial grace, furthermore, is not seen as necessarily engaging the will. Thus infant baptism.

There are many things you are simply overlooking, or simply misinterpreting because of how you jump to narrow the Scriptures to a single comprehensible point. Calm down. Be patient. You give the impression of being too busy parsing verbs and devouring passages to be passive before the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures. And yet, even as you manifest such industrious mental activity, you denigrate the efficacy of works. What is your goal in all of this? Do you hope to add anything to the glory of God by your words? Do you think perhaps His love is made manifest when you best your opponents? Ease up on the bowstring, Jehu.

Andrew- Yes, I had noticed. Clifton and I have different ideas about the nature of Scripture. The common ground to which I referred is found, not in its nature, but in the function of Scripture: it is a rule of faith and practice. But, okay, for the sake of argument, let's say that the distinction between nature and function is invalid. In this case, you're right: we share the burden of proof. Yet, even here, I am not committing the fallacy of which he is so fond of accusing me, which is counting a lack of proof for the opposing side as proof for my own. I am not suggesting that a neutral observer should accept my position because Clifton has failed to prove his. Rather, I am saying that, as long as Clifton has not proven his position, then I have no reason whatsoever to give up my position. That is, unless Clifton wishes to say that a lack of proof for his own position constitutes proof against mine- which is ridiculous. There is a tertium quid.

I do believe that Christ is the central focus of all revelation. I deny that revelation is "simply" Scripture. The whole idea of "inscripturation" presupposes that revelation was originally given in some other form. The redemptive-historical events recorded in Scripture were themselves revelation. All of these pointed to and culminated in the person and work of Jesus Christ as the final historical revelation. Nevertheless, I disagree with the inferences that you draw from Christ being revelation. If I follow your argument, it is this: Christ, in whom all the glory of the Godhead is manifest, dwells among us and lives in us. [So far, so good] Christ Himself is revelation. [Yes] Because this revelation dwells among us and lives within us, there is no need to posit the mediation of the Scriptures in the economy of grace.---And here's where we part company. It looks like you're saying that the revelatory nature of Christ is an immediate result of his dwelling in us and so the function of Scripture as revelation is not necessary. I'm not sure if you're saying that Scripture is not needed to mediate revelation at all, or just that it is not needed to mediate the revelation which is Christ (suggesting that Scripture might reveal other things besides Christ). The only thing I can gather from following a denial of the "need to posit the mediation of Scripture in the economy of grace" so closely with, "they are necessary because they play such a central role in the life Christ lives in His Spouse..." is that, revelation itself being immediate, Scripture has been relegated to a largely liturgical function. Please correct me if I have misrepresented your views.

I especially deny your contention that there is "no need to posit the mediation of Scripture in the economy of grace." The point behind sola scriptura is that Scripture is both a necessary and a sufficient mediation of the revelation that is found in Christ. Revelation is not intrinsic to the person of Christ such that, by virtue of his continued existence and living within us, we keep getting the benefits of fresh, unmediated revelation. The revelation of Christ was confined to that time of his bodily earthly existence. It was the intersection of the divine into human history when he was performing the work of redemption. When he returns, this will constitute more redemptive revelation. Right now, I'm concerned with the interim. Our only access to the content of that redemptive revelation found in the person and work of Christ comes in the form of Scripture. It is not immediately granted to us by virtue of his presence.

Your final comment about the parsimonious nature of my cessationism only follows if it is the case that God must perform miracles in order to overflow with grace. I'll try to get to your second set of comments tomorrow.

Kevin:

While you are correct that if I haven't proven my case, you are not obligated to accept it, but it does not necessarily follow that you may still hold to your own position. That is to say, even if I haven't proven my case, if I have disproved your own, you cannot logically hold to it.

I have no doubts as to what are likely your assessments on which of us has proven our case and disproved the other. Our readers will no doubt have their own assessments.

Thank you for your reply, Kevin.

I think your comments on the burden of proof are as far as I would go as well.

Now,

"It looks like you're saying that the revelatory nature of Christ is an immediate result of his dwelling in us and so the function of Scripture as revelation is not necessary.>

Close. I'm saying that the revelatory nature of Christ is not a result of anything. In that He is the Divine Word, He speaks the glory of God eternally. In that He is, He is revelatory. It is for this reason that pagans are condemned for their idolatry. They are culpable because they too dwell in the light of His self-revelation. They even have the testimony of His works in nature. In that He does not hide Himself from men, God has already done all that is necessary.

Nevertheless, knowing man's weakness, God showed Himself to the patriarchs and the prophets - a free gift of grace above and beyond that which was necessary - superfluous. And yet, to them to whom much is given, much is expected. Because of the excellent gift of the Law, Israel could not return to the less excellent economy of God's grace in nature. The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

In Christ, we are given another free gift of grace. Out of His infinite love and delight, God brought forth the miracle of the Incarnation so that man, blind in his sin, might be healed of his blindness and brought face-to-face with the Son of God. In the Son, henceforth man would live and the Son would live through him that the Bride might finally be brought into full union with the Bridegroom on the last day. In this act of perfect grace, God gave a gift to man to which nothing whatever could be added.

Thus, if one sees the Scriptures as an addition or a completion of what was already present before the Ascension, then one must be wrong. Christ gave His own Life to the Church and from that Life, nothing can be taken away and nothing can be added.

Now, if one sees the Scriptures as simply one variation of that which was present from the beginning, then there is harmony.

But as I see it, you suggest that prior to inscripturation, there was oral Revelation and then the oral Revelation ceased when written Revelation came about. In other words, Christ gave a gift to the world - His bodily presence - which He then took away and replaced with the words of the Apostles. Then, He took the Apostles away and replaced them with what they had written, and so things stand. Except God does not give and take away. He merely gives. In death, we do not lose our lives, but our lives are tranformed. In adulthood, we do not cease to be children, but we have new gifts to add to our childish ones. In Christ, He does not do away with the Law, but He completes it. In giving the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit does not do away with the spoken Traditions of which Paul speaks, but He enriches and strengthens them.

And from beginning to end, the economy of grace is superfluous.

"Revelation is not intrinsic to the person of Christ such that, by virtue of his continued existence and living within us, we keep getting the benefits of fresh, unmediated revelation."

But yes. Of course we do. This is not to say that we get new revelation since nothing may be added to Christ, but the revelation of Christ is always fresh and alive. And as it is alive it is always moving and showing itself to us in new ways. Have you never awoken in the night and felt as if you were in a strange place even though you were in your own room? And yet it was not what you saw that had changed, but the way you saw it. Just so, Christ gave Himself to his Church at the very first, and gave Himself completely. Nothing has changed in the substance of how we come to revelation from that time to this moment. Only, between that time and now, we have gained the benefits of two thousand years of gazing lovingly upon Him. Not one of those benefits may be dispensed with. The chief fruit of the Church's contemplation of the Living Christ is the Book of the Scriptures, and every other fruit is intimately tied to it, but it is not the only fruit and we may not take it without the others. It is not itself the life of the Church.

As for mediation... there is no mediator between God and man save Christ. Not even the Scriptures.

Clifton- Yes, I cannot logically hold to a case that has been disproven. But aside from any question of whether or not you have actually done this, you cannot continue to make the charge that I take lack of proof for the opposing side as proof of my own.

Andrew- Responding to both your second and third sets of comments in order.

Although the person and work of Christ can be expressed propositionally, he is not himself a proposition. Christ is the Word of God in that he reveals God to us, but this does not mean that he is a propositional foundation. I will not duspute the connection established between Christ and the Church at the cross, and Scripture adds nothing to this; however, its function does go beyond "merely enrich[ing] it and participat[ing] in it in a special way." Scripture, especially the preachng of the Word, is, along with the Sacraments, a means of grace. These are what the Holy Spirit uses to effect our connection with Christ. This is not to say that grace is found in these things, I agree that grace is only found in Christ. While it is true that Christ did all that is necessary for salvation, it is still the case that what he did and who he is must be believed. We only know the content of this belief because of Scripture. Scripture contains all the propositions and inferences concerning the person and work of Christ that are necessary for salvation.

I had in mind Isaiah 42:8, "I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols." I was also using Ephesians 2:8,9 in which grace and works are contrasted as a means of salvation, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." While it may be possible to equate image and glory, it is still necessary to consider both terms in their specific contexts. There is a sense in which God is jealous over Israel; however, in the most common use of the term to describe God, he is jealous over his name and over the worship that is due him. Consider also that the reason often attatched to worshipping God is his role in salvation. If we had any share in our salvation, then we would be able to boast. God could not be rightly jealous when we decided to take some of the credit.

I have consulted the Catholic Catechism, along with the Council of Trent, Vatican II, and Catholic authors such as Thomas Aquinas. I am also aware of the Reformers view of Catholic soteriology and of their view of the Reformers at the time. I will not deny that the Catholic system can be construed in a manner fully in line with the Biblical doctrine of salvation (especially by those not versed in the theory behind it) and that people can thereby be saved in the Catholic Church. However, it is presented, especially in its Tridentine form, as a system of works salvation. Perhaps you could point out specific passages that would refute my understanding thereof. Still, the point remains, both sides in the Reformation considered the other side to be soteriological heretics, and I am far from convinced that it was all a misunderstanding or that their respective views should be relegated to a second order doctrine. At this point it is not a matter of taking Rome's word for it. I'm not convinced that Rome has actually said anything to the contrary, although, I will consider any evidence you wish to present.

No, faith is not a work. Even if you are able to make the case that faith is an action, it is still necesarry to think of faith in terms of biblical categories. In Romans 4:1-8, it is set in contrast with works as that by which we are justified. We are either justified by faith or by works. There is no warrant for thinking of faith as a work such that other works may also be given to bring us to salvation. There is also the matter of the timing of faith. Faith may be the instrument of justification, but regeneration precedes faith. If anyone has ever prayed a sinner's prayer, this was not, despite their protestations to the contrary, the moment in which their first wilfull exercise of faith caused them to be born again. Rather, because they had alrady been born again, faith was expressed in their profession. Regeneration is a sovereign work of the Spirit of God that starts a chain reaction leading to our ultimate glorification in heaven. Regeneration is tied to our union with Christ in his death. Just as we are also raised with him, so will we live with him for eternity. Once regeneration has taken place, faith, justification, sanctification, and glorification are inevitable. We work as an expression of the salvation that we already possess. We do not work towards it in order to regain it or keep it. While it is true that, under Catholicism, no part of salvation originates from us, it is also true that at any point we can thwart our own salvation by not cooperating with the grace that has been given so as to merit more grace.

I'm not sure what to make of your contention that I "jump to narrow the Scriptures to a single conprehensible point." It seems like a broad generalization to me. Again, specific examples would be helpful. The next critique is really amusing. If you knew me, you'd also know that no one has ever had cause to tell me, "Calm down. Be patient." The Spirit of God does not speak in the Scriptures to the passive. This requires diligent study. This kind of work has to do with our sanctification, which is synergistic. My dinigration of works has to with our own works in those areas that are properly monergistic. Your questions regarding my goal and motivation seem to imply that you think that I am not in fact glorifying God or manifesting his love. If you think so, please present your case. I'd like to stop if you're right. Jehu? Yes, I know who he is, I'm just not convinced that this is the best analogy. In the biblical narrative, those who told Jehu to lighten up got shot and God commended him for it. You might want to think of somebody else.

Christ may speak the glory of God eternally, but, until someone has been created to hear what's being said, this hardly costitutes revelation. Beyond this, you seem to be confusing general and special revelation. General revelation provides all that is necessary to demonstrate the wrath of God. It provides nothing that is necessary in the way of telling us how to be saved. In this regard, special revelation is far from superfluous. Scripture adds nothing to what had already been revealed in Christ. Neither, however, is it "simply one variation of that which was present from the beginning." Well, I guess it depends on how you're defining 'beginning.' If you mean that Christ, as the object of revelation has been around since the beginning, then fine. But it is not the case that revelation itself was complete until the advent of Christ. Then there's the matter of "simply one." This gives the impression that the content of special revelation can come to us by means other than Scripture. There is no warrant for believing this.

I don't quite agree that God merely gives; however, I take your point. When it comes to his own people, he never takes away without ultimately giving back far more in return. The process of revelation culminating in inscripturation does have a chronological sequence to it, but denying that it happened will not make anything more or less taken away than it already is. Christ did ascend into heaven, whether or not we want to connect his earthly presence to revelation. Likewise, the Apostles are dead and what they had to say has been written down. But no, it's not a matter of taking away. Christ still exists in bodily form, seated at the right hand of the Father, daily making intercession for us. He also sends his Holy Spirit to us while he is in heaven. The Apostles functioned as the foundation of the church and, even though they are no longer here, the foundation remains. As to oral revelation, it isn't taken away, it just changes form upon being written down. Grace is undeserved; it is not superfluous.

The revelation of Christ is indeed always fresh and alive, but we are only able to receive this revelation because of Scripture. Also, be sure not to confuse a subjective individual experience of revelation with the full content of revelation once and for all delivered to the church in the Scriptures. We can be made newly aware of revelation for the rest of our lives, but everything that we may learn was already contained in the inscripturated Word. I would reverse your statement to read, "The chief fruit of the Book of the Scriptures is the Church's contemplation of the Living Christ." Scripture is not itself the life of the church, but it is most necessary to the existence of that life.

I'm afraid that I have used the word "mediation" in a confusing manner. The primary definition, which is related to Christ as the one mediator in I Timothy 2:5, is "the act or process of mediating; esp: intervention between conflicting parties to promote reconcilation, settlement, or compromise" (Webster's). However, I was understanding "mediation" to be synonymous with "medium," which is "a means of effecting or conveying something" with emphasis on the conveying. In this sense, Scripture conveys the revelation of Christ. This revelation is mediate in that it comes through a medium. Immediate (which does not mean "speedy") revelation would be that revelation that comes to us directly from Christ himself without the benefit of a medium. On the basis of the sufficiency of Scripture, I deny that this kind of special revelation exists. Scripture is a necessary medium to convey the revelation of Christ. Christ's role as the one mediator between God and man is not about conveying revelation from himself to us, but about reconciling us to God through his incarnation and atoning sacrifice.

Thank you again for your comments, Kevin.

In the Catechism, I refer you to sections 1987-2016.

Also,

Faith may be the instrument of justification, but regeneration precedes faith.

Section 2027. The way you talk about faith closely mirrors the way the Catechism speaks of merit. Please explain why faith is not merit viewed in these terms.

I suggest also that you revisit the story of Jehu. God commissioned him to put an end to Ahab, but Jehu gained no benefit from his commission. He met a bad end and enjoyed no favor with the Almighty. It is strange how apt Jezebel's greeting is. One gets the sense that Jehu killed Ahab for Jehu's sake, and God's commission was merely a guarantee of success to him. Compare with Phineas, a very orthodox personage. He "stood in the gap." What, by contrast, might we say that Jehu did?

One need not contrast "passive" and "studious." Consider what the Psalmist says, "Selah." Meditate on this. The Scriptures must first be savored in the meek silence of the heart. Then, in disputation, we may bring forth good out of good treasure. Dilligent study is very well, but it only brings one to the threshold.

"This kind of work has to do with our sanctification, which is synergistic. My dinigration of works has to with our own works in those areas that are properly monergistic."

So synergistic works are okay, but not monergistic? Then your criticisms of the Roman system fall flat. Again, check the catechism. Monergistic works are excluded from consideration. The only works included are synergistic - that is, works of Christ through us and in us bring us to salvation. It seems to me that, having made this claim for yourself, the only arguments you might be able to raise against Rome are 1) Christ's work of sancitification is separate from His work of justification and/or 2) synergistic works are also contrary to grace unless we are speaking of reading the Scriptures (which seems like something you wouldn't say). Perhaps there are other options. I look forward to hearing your arguments on this point.

"the Apostles are dead"

No, they are alive in Christ, and Rome would say they are still at work in the Church.

Furthermore, if Christ is not with us bodily, then in what sense is He with us? Spiritually? But the Spirit of Christ is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. Do we then say that Christ is with us because the Spirit is with us? Wouldn't that be confusing the Persons? Again, Rome would say Christ is continually with us bodily. Also, oral revelation. Why do you say it has ceased to be passed down? Because it is inscripturated? Why would that make it stop?

"Grace is undeserved; it is not superfluous."

Please explain the difference. How is it even intelligible to speak of what we deserve from God?

God has no need to give grace. It is not necessary for Him. Thus, it is by definition superfluous. Perhaps you mean grace is not superfluous in the sense that it is necessary for us. Is that where your focus should be?

Salvific grace is, in a certain sense, extra-superfluous. The pagans are culpable for their idolatry because they dwelt in plain sight of the Living God all their lives. Prior to any special revelation, God had given us all that was necessary that we might acknowledge and obey Him. He did not hide Himself from us. Indeed, in creating nature as He did, He gave us a very solid push in His direction. Were it not for man's sin, that would have been that. God did all He needed to do to accomplish His merciful purpose, but nonetheless man turned from Him. The wretchedness of man took nothing away from the sufficiency of God's provision, and so what God did further for man's salvation was above and beyond the call, as it were. The cup was created full, and now it began to overflow.

I have more to say, but it is late, and I need to go to bed. Please feel free to comment on these things before I say anything else.

"Christ is the Word of God in that he reveals God to us, but this does not mean that he is a propositional foundation."

If this were the whole story, then why would He be described as the Word in the beginning before man? He is Word by His nature. In the economy of the Godhead, He is the Word. With the help of the Spirit, the Word is intelligible apart from the Scriptures. Otherwise, how do we make sense of the centurion's witness to Christ's Godhood on the cross in Mark?

Thus, He is not the propositional foundation in the sense that the propositional foundation of geometry consists of axioms. However, the content of geometry is not found in the axioms themselves but in the intelligible realities they describe. Scripture is not the foundation of true doctrine, but an image of that foundation, which is Christ. By this, I am not saying we should dispense with Scripture, but I do think you are giving more weight to Scripture than is warranted.

"The process of revelation culminating in inscripturation does have a chronological sequence to it, but denying that it happened will not make anything more or less taken away than it already is.

Again, my claim is that Christ is not merely the object of revelation, but the revelation itself. If that is the case, revelation was completed at the Incarnation. The only process is the process of preaching that revelation to all men. Thus, when we preach the gospel, we do not preach the Scriptures but Christ, and the Scriptures also preach Christ. Whether our preaching is good or not does not depend upon whether it comes from Scripture but upon whether it comes from Christ. I'm guessing you would contend that, unless it comes from Scripture, it doesn't come from Christ, but is Christ not in the Church? Why should the Church have to quote chapter and verse to tell about realities intimate to its very being? Again, I am not saying we may dispense with the Scriptures. Only, I am contending that the Church's preaching of Christ is a personal witness to Christ at all times. Scripture is an integral part of that witness. It does not precede it or undergird it.

Furthermore, whether the elements of what you call the process of inscripturation have been taken away or not is a matter of contention. You have simply stated that they have been taken away without addressing my concerns in the matter. I suggest that it is not in the nature of God to take away anything He has once given. If you wish to make the case that the gifts given to the Apostles reside in the Scriptures, then I would be sympathetic, but the idea that God gives temporary gifts strikes me as equivalent to saying that God doesn't do it right the first time.

Andrew- Why faith is not merit. Section 2027 states, "No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods." This initial grace has the power to justify us, defined in 1987 as cleansing us from our sins. This justification is "conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith." The initial grace is the only grace that is not merited. God needs to act first in order to make possible a sequence of events. Grace makes meritorious works possible; these works, in turn, merit more grace, and so on, hopefully concluding in eternal life. The first work of this initial grace is conversion (conversion is not the initial grace itself). This conversion is an act that man performs. "Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high" (1989). This conversion effects, that is, causes or brings about, justification. Since justification also came with the initial grace, this is already contrary to the Reformed position. In that view, justification happens once. According to the Catechism, "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sancitification and renewal of the interior man" (ibid). What this ends up meaning is that justification, conferred in the initial grace, can be lost unless further grace is merited. "Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom" (1993). This does not mean that man necessarily works in cooperation with grace. In fact, freedom is meant to express the opposite point. "When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it..." [emphasis mine] (ibid). After this intitial grace, we can merit the grace needed to attain eternal life, but this will not always be the case. Intitial grace is a necessary condition for eternal life, but it is not a sufficient condition. As to merit itself, the Catechism calls it a "recompense owed" (2006). Even though "there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man" due to the "immeasurable inequality" between him and God (2007), the intitial grace changes the terms. "Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice" (2009). The gratuitous justice refers to what God bestows in the intial unmerited grace. By this intitial grace, our nature is changed so that we are able to and do have a right to merit with regard to God. From this point on, grace is not gratuitous, but God owes it to good works.

Now to the Reformed view. As it is stated, we can accept the first sentence in 2027, but we do not accept what it implies. We don't believe that any grace can be merited. We agree that this initial grace gives us life. This is what we mean by 'regeneration.' We disagree that this life can ever be lost through a lack of cooperation with grace. The life granted is eternal life, which does not merely mean life that has the potential to last forever; rather, eternal life refers to an intrinsic quality or feature of this life. It is life that can never be lost. Once the intitial grace of regeneration is granted, it makes no sense to speak of further graces "needed to attain eternal life." In much Protestant thought, especially that influenced by Arminianism, faith is, for all practical purposes, a form of merit (even though many of them don't see it this way). First, man exercises his will to believe the gospel and, in response to this, God grants him salvation. This currently stands as the majority Protestant view. My use of the phrase "regeneration precedes faith" was intentionally meant to counter this. Eternal life is granted before faith. For this reason alone, faith cannot be said to merit eternal life. Furthermore, faith is not a work, it is not an act of the will, it is not something that the regenerate could have not done; it is a natural result of being regenerated. Belief in anything is not subject to the will. Try it. Try to believe, right now, that you are not reading a response distinguishing between faith and merit. It's possible that, later on, you will forget and thus not believe. But to it is no more possible to believe or not believe by an act of the will than it is control what is received or not received by the unobstructed senses. Here is what happens. Regeneration is a sovereign and irresistible act of the Spirit of God on whomever he chooses. It results from our being put into union with Christ in his resurrection. Faith, being both a necessary consequence of regeneration and resulting only from regeneration, stands as evidence of our union with Christ. Just as Christ was declared to be righteous in his resurrection, we who are united with him in his resurrection are also declared righteous; that is, we are justified. Since salvation is a once and for all done deal, Catholics accuse Protestants of antinomianism. Unfortunately, in many cases, the Protestants live up to the accusation. This has to do with a misunderstanding of sanctification. The grace of regeneration does produce good works. If the good works are not there, we may assume that the grace was never there. The difference between the Reformed and Catholic view is that these good works do not merit our salvation. They do not bring about eternal life; they do not obligate God to give us more grace. On the contrary, they stand as the evidence that eternal life is already the possession of the one performing them.

"Jehu gained no benefit from his commission. He met a bad end and enjoyed no favor with the Almighty." Contrast with II Kings 10:30, "And the LORD said to Jehu, 'Because you have done well in carrying out what is right in my eyes, and have done to the house of Ahab all that was in my heart, your sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel.'"

Actually, I thought that you were the one contrasting "passive" and "studious" by opting for the former. I was taking your comments as, "Sit back, do nothing, and biblical knoweldge will obtain." Perhaps not. The closest thing that I can think of to a passive reception of Scripture would be listening to a sermon. But even then, our minds should always be engaged. As to reading it, this must involve some effort to figure out what it is saying. All of which is involved in meditation. The concept is to think hard, not to clear one's mind. If there is any savoring to be done, this comes after knowing what a passage of Scripture has intended to communicate.

I did not say that monergistic works were not okay. Monergistic works are the sole basis of salvation. God works all by himelf. I was criticizing man's effort to add his own works to that work which is proper to God alone. And you're right about the Catechism: monergistic works are excluded, which is what I find so objectionable. Sanctification is distinct from justification. The first is a progressive increase in holiness for those who are saved. The second is the initial and irrevocable declaration of righteousness that is due, not to any works in the recipient, but solely to the grace of God. Synergistic works, in their proper place, are not contrary to the grace of God. They belong to sanctification and are no part of obtaining salvation.

I realize that there is a sense in which the Apostles are still alive and in which they still participate in the life of the Church. I have not seen any scriptural warrant to indicate that they still exercise any personal influence on the Church on earth outside of the teachings that they left behind.

For your average single natured human being there is only one way to really be with someone: the body must be present. The person is rather attatched to it until death. Saved people whose bodies have died are in heaven and can't be with us. We can speak of being with someone "in spirit," but this is nothing more than an expression to say that we'll be thinking about or, perhaps, praying for someone. It does not mean that we have the capability of projecting our spirits outside of our bodies. In the case of Jesus, his person is forever unitied with his body, which is currently located in heaven. However, the person of Jesus Christ is also the Second Person of the Trinity and, by virtue of his divine nature, possesses the attribute of omnipresence (his person, not his body). There is a special sense in which he is present in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. He is present in the preaching of his Word. He's God. If he says he'll be there, then he is. Incidentally, unless we want to attribute omnipresence to our own spirits, then Christ's human spirit would be just as limited as his body is. It shouldn't be confused with the Holy Spirit. Oral revelation is no longer given because there is no more revelation given at all. I have no objection to oral revelation being passed down, providing that the content of that revelation is identical to what is found in Scripture.

You're overdefining "superfluous" when you say that God has no need to give grace. Strictly speaking, God has no need of anything. On the other hand, there are certain things that God does need to do if he wants certain results. If it is his intent to dwell with man forever, and man sins, then it is necessary for God to give grace. He needs to do this. Noramally, though, when speaking of such things as grace, things which are directed at us, it is appropriate to speak in terms of how it affects us. Grace is far from superfluous. Without it, we die. But there is nothing in this fact alone that can obligate God to give it because we do not deserve to live. As to your question, "How is it even intelligible to speak of what we deserve from God?" you may want to direct this at the Catholic Catechism's view of merit.

I believe that the description of Christ as the Word before man ever was may be considering God's intent toward what he would subsequently create. Maybe. Nevertheless, I do take your point. Christ is the Word of God in his eternal nature. Yet, until someone exists other than the persons in the Godhead, this Word reveals nothing. The Spirit does make the Word intelligible; however, he does this through a medium such as Scripture (which, I argue, is the only medium available today). When the centurion believed, Christ was physically present. He was the medium. Also, the centurion had most likely been witness to the events that constituted Christ's Passion. All of these were event revelation (which was later to be inscripturated). Fianally, we cannot rule out the possibility that the centurion had some knowledge of relevant OT Scripture. Properly speaking, revelation, which is chiefly about and includes Christ, is the foundation of true doctrine. Scripture and its preaching is the only means now available for receiving this revelation.

I agree that Christ is revelation itself. He is both its subject and its object. It does not follow from this that revelation was completed at the incarnation. We do need to leave room for the rest of Christ's life, for the fulfillment of all previous revelation in both his person and his work. Preaching the Scripture is preaching Christ. Not only that, this is the only way that Christ can be preached. Yes, Christ is in the Church, but the Church can know nothing of Christ save what is in Scripture. There is nothing intimate to the very being of the Church the specific reality of which cannot be inferred from Scripture.

Would you suggest that the OT sacrificial system should still be practiced because, otherwise, God wouldn't have done it right? It isn't a matter of several trial runs before God settles on the perfect solution. He knows all along what he intends to do. In the case of the Apostles, they are likened to a foundation. The Church itself is the building. There is no more need for Apostles for the very reason that God did get it right the first time. The same thing goes with the temporary gifts. They have been taken away because they have completely served the purpose that God had for them.

"As to your question, "How is it even intelligible to speak of what we deserve from God?" you may want to direct this at the Catholic Catechism's view of merit.'

Quite right. I wasn't thinking when I asked that.
However, I can only answer it with respect to the Catholic system of thought by differing with you on how one ought to interpret the catechism.

"This conversion is an act that man performs. 'Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high' (1989)."

Here, it is clear that the conversion is not simply an act man performs. Man is "moved by grace" when he turns toward God. Thus, there is one action, but two movers. It is a synergistic action in a certain sense. However, "synergistic" suggests that there are two equal wills at work, which is not what ought to be read here. Rather, man's will which participates in conversion only participates because of the previous unilateral work of the Holy Spirit in Baptism. Thus, both the grace which moves man to conversion and man's willingness to move are works of God. There is no part of conversion which originates with man, though man participates freely.

I would say this reading of the catechism makes more sense of phrases like, "The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness." Merit is simultaneously deserved by man and freely given by God.

I would answer my own question as to how one can be said to deserve something from God by saying that we can only deserve if God first gives. In other words, once God gives a gift to me, it is my right to receive it. Only one person may then violate that right - me - and if I do so, I am justly condemned.

You may ask how it is possible for me to freely reject the grace of conversion if the willingness to accept the conversion comes from the Holy Spirit? The answer is that the Catholic view of the will emphasizes the continuity of the will over time. We do not make one choice at a time. Every time we make a choice, we dispose the will to make a later choice. In order to choose as we are predisposed to choose, no exertion of the will is necessary. Thus, in Baptism, the Holy Spirit predisposes the will toward conversion, and if we do not exert our will to alter that predisposition, conversion and all further outworkings of salvific grace will proceed apace. Nevertheless, we could exert our wills over time to reject the grace of conversion (it takes some doing, though). This does not nullify the work of baptism. The predisposition is, in a certain sense, irresistable because we cannot rid ourselves of it once we have been baptised. Baptism leaves a permanent mark on the soul. However, we can postpone the work of the Holy Spirit until it is too late for us by being willful. You'll note that the reason the catechism gives for saying conversion is a free choice is not that we actively choose it, but that we are able to reject it.

The distinction you make between faith and works seems to depend upon a view of the will in which it is only operable in a single moment. I cannot refuse to believe that I am writing a comment, therefore, you would say belief is not an act of
the will. However, I would say that the reason I cannot simply disbelieve is because I have chosen to believe various other things in the past which make this particular belief difficult to reject. A good Buddhist would not have the same problem.

Therefore, if we accept this characterization of the will, faith is as much an act of will as any other act.

As far as I can tell, all of this is how it is intelligible to speak of deserving something from God in the Catholic system of theology. As yet, however, I do not understand how it is intelligible to speak of being deserving or undeserving before God in the Reformed system.

"Sanctification is distinct from justification. "

You simply state this. I would like to hear evidence for this view. It seems to me that both the sanctification and the justification of the Church are accomplished by Christ on the cross. Christ's work on the cross is one work, therefore why should we speak of sanctification and justification as two separate works rather than as two aspects of the same work?

"I agree that Christ is revelation itself. He is both its subject and its object. It does not follow from this that revelation was completed at the incarnation. We do need to leave room for the rest of Christ's life, for the fulfillment of all previous revelation in both his person and his work. Preaching the Scripture is preaching Christ. "

It seems to me that there is an equivocation going on here. We seem to be using "revelation" to refer both to something that Christ is and something that Christ does. In other words, we speak of Christ as being the revelation of God according to His nature, under which usage there is no more revelation at the time of His death than there is at the time of His birth. We also speak of revelation, however, in terms of the progressive realization among human beings that Christ is who He is. The miracle at Cana is a revelation because Christ sends a clear message to help human beings realize the nature of the One who is before their eyes. Under these terms, revelation is relative to the human beings who receive Christ, and so the work of revelation can never be complete because in human beings there will always be some amount of ignorance or perversity which requires an extra push towards Christ. If I understand correctly, you're saying that the Scriptures are the only push now. They are sufficient for the purpose of bringing the elect to the knowledge of Christ.

This much only for clarification. Is it accurate?

"When the centurion believed, Christ was physically present. He was the medium."

That doesn't make sense. It's like you're saying that Christ was between Himself and the centurion. It might be better to say that the medium of revelation was the event of the Crucifixion. As for this,

Also, the centurion had most likely been witness to the events that constituted Christ's Passion."

How does such speculation fit in with sola scriptura? The Scripture doesn't say anything at all on that point, so how are we justified in speculating on it?

"There is no more need for Apostles for the very reason that God did get it right the first time. The same thing goes with the temporary gifts. They have been taken away because they have completely served the purpose that God had for them."

Perhaps we should speak of the Apostles in the same terms I have spoken of the miracles of Jesus above. They are events of revelation. They are mediums, and, just as the wedding at Cana came and went, so the Apostles may come and go.

My problem, however, comes with the fact that, in order to be events of revelation, the Apostles had to receive a special grace and teaching authority from Christ. As fallible human beings, they could not be entrusted with the Truth so exclusively. The only source of such a grace could be His work on the cross. As I see it, there is no source of grace for the Church save this. Therefore, once given, this grace cannot be taken away. If the grace was simply given to the Apostles, then that's that. It went when they went, but the grace of the Crucifixion is given in full to the whole Church and not merely to members of the Church. The Apostles had this special grace because they were who they were in relation to the Church and therefore who they were in relation to Christ. Thus, it follows that this same grace and teaching authority is in the Church today in some form or another.

Scripture follows from this grace and so cannot be the foundation for it. The conditions which brought Scripture into being still obtain today. There is no new revelation in the sense that nothing can be added to Christ, but the events of revelation still proceed forward as they did in the days before Scripture was written. The Scriptures are an event of revelation caused by the special grace given to the Church to teach, but that grace does not cease in its operation simply because Scripture is complete. Rather, it continues to bring forth events of revelation which are consonant with Scripture and which do not repeat the work Scripture has done. Thus, they can never be of greater dignity than the Scriptures (because the grace of God was in full operation from the start and accomplished the greatest work first as is fitting), but neither need they be identical to Scripture or utterly dependant upon Scripture, for they proceed from the same source.

Andrew- In my opinion, many Protestants have done a disservice to both sides of the Reformation by framing the debate in terms of faith and grace vs. works, implying that the Roman system is one of rank Pelagianism. Not only is it wrong to misrepresent the opposition, but this has also opened the door for some Protestants to to teach what the Reformers had rejected. It is not the case that Rome denies the necessity of grace or of faith. The Reformed objection is that they deny the sufficiency of both by adding human works. We do not claim that Rome views justification as simply a result of man's work; rather, our objection is that man's work is considered at all. I know that you used the word "conversion," but this term is just vague enough that a synergistic view may be acceptable.

When the non-Reformed hear about monergistic salvation, it is very easy to picture people doing nothing, or even acting contrary to grace, and still ending up saved. This is true both for those who do not believe in monergism and want to add works, and for those who do and end up being antinomians. Part of the problem is that there is more than one way in which the term "salvation" can be used. It can be used in a broader sense, covering everything from effectual calling (regeneration) to glorification. In this view, sanctification is very much a part of salvation and so salvation is synergistic. Or, it can be used of the intitial monergistic steps that, having been taken, guarantee the outcome. The chain in Romans 8:30 makes no sense if we add the word "some" in front of each part. Instead, all who are predestined are called, justified, and then glorified. Paul is only concerned here with the monergistic aspects of salvation. He is not denying other components. Sanctification fits in there after called and before glorified. Whether we take justification as our declaration of rightoeusness in union with Christ at his resurrection, or as the same declaration at the final judgment, the verdict is just as guaranteed as everything else. Nothing can be done to change it. In the Reformed view, those who have been regenerated cannot fail to cooperate in their sanctification.

An account of the Reformed view of the will is in order here. The idea is not that sanctification can happen against one's will. You spoke of the will being predisposed towards conversion and that "further outworkings of salvific grace will proceed apace" unless we exert our wills to the contrary. This exception is not possible. The majority view on the will, commonly known as 'libertarian,' says that, in any given situation, the will is only free if it could have chosen otherwise. Freedom is defined in terms of indeterminacy. The compatibilist view counters that true indeterminacy can only lead to paralysis. In this second view, the will is not to be equated with the person but is a faculty of our nature. We are free moral agents. Our choices have moral consequence and we are always free to choose according to our strongest inclination. That is, in any given circumstances, we always choose what we most want at the moment of decision. Our strongest inclination will be determined by a number of factors (including previous choices), not the least of which is our nature. Salvation is not a matter of acting contrary to the will, but of changing the nature through regeneration so that the will will follow. We are still free to choose what we most want, but what we most want changes after we have been called by God. Freedom is not defined as the ability to reject something, but as the ability to act in accordance with our greatest desire.

Each act of the will is done in a moment. This is not contrary to saying that each act is influenced by previous acts. The previous acts serve to mold who we are, which, in turn, determines how we will act. And I'm not buying the bit about the good Buddhist. All I have to do is rephrase the proposition. Say that a good Buddhist is reading this comment. He can believe that there really is no comment, no computer screen on which he is reading it, and that I don't exist. All of which goes to denying objective reality. However, at the moment he is reading it, he must believe that he is being appeared to in the form of a comment (whether he formulates the belief in just those words is not the point).

In the Reformed system, being deserving or undeserving before God is considered in terms of our being in either the first or the second Adam. Undeserving in this context does not refer to neutrality but to desert of negative consequences. The Reformed system is based on the concept of merit (although recently, many in the Reformed camp have sought to deny this by denying the Covenant of Works). Basically, what we deserve is tied to a judicial decree of righteous (justification) or unrighteous. When Adam sinned by breaking the terms of the covenant given him to keep, he was declared unrighteous. He, and all those who were in him, merited whatever had been attatched to that declaration, which was eternal death. When the Second Adam kept the terms of this covenant, he was declared righteous and merited eternal life for all who are in union with him.

I did more than to simply state a distinction between sancitification and justification. Furthermore, this is a distinction, not a separation. Both are aspects of salvation, especially when salvation is considered in its broader sense. But, if they are different aspects, then they have different functions. The one is a declaration of righteousness based on our union with Christ when he was declared righteous in his resurrection. The other is an ongoing process of making us holy. The difference is not between 'holy' and 'righteous,' since these are practically interchangeable. It is between a declaration and an ongoing process. First, God declares who we are in Christ. The declaration is true. We really are in union with Christ. We have already received the punishment for sin in his crucifixion and we have already been declared righteous in his resurrection. Justification is a declaration of our status in Christ. Sanctification is the cooperative process whereby, in this life, we are conformed to Christ.

Revelation is a special form of communication. We must consider it in terms of "the progressive realization among human beings that Christ is who He is." The miracle at Cana is revelation as you have described it. It does not follow from any of this that revelation can never be complete. There is a tension in Reformed theology (and. I would argue, in Scripture) between mankind considered as individuals and as a corporate entity. The whole idea of covenants and of the two Adams argues for the corporate aspect. When Adan fell, we all shared in his guilt. When Christ fulfilled the law, all who are in union with him shared in his righteousness. The miracle at Cana, as with all miracles and all event revelation, was given to mankind, or, even more narrowly, the Church, as a corporate entity. The primary question of reception was settled right there. But there is also the matter of individual awareness of revelation. For this, we have Scripture in which all event revelation has been put in written form. Scripture contains all the revelation that will ever be required to bring the elect to the knowledge of Christ. Preaching of Scripture is, with the work of the Holy Spirit, sufficient to make effectual the work of Christ for his Church.

I have no problem saying that the event of the Crucifixion was the medium of revelation. The crucifixion is an example of event revelation. As to Christ being the medium of revelation when he is physically present, there is no inherent problem with this. Haven't you heard the saying, "The medium is the message"? In this case, a medium is necessary because we receive revelation through our physical senses. We hear (or see) the record of Scripture. It would have been just as effective to actually see or hear Christ speak in the first place, which the centurion was able to do. As to the centurion being witness to the events that constituted Chist's Passion, there isn't much speculation here at all. Scripture records that he was standing there watching it.

The Apostles could be considered events of revelation insofar as anything recorded in Scripture can be so considered. The category is just a bit broad. They do share something in common with miracles in that both could be considered mediums of revelation. They differ from miracles in that the Apostles are not themselves revelation. You write, "There is no new revelation in the sense that nothing can be added to Christ, but the events of revelation still proceed forward as they did in the days before Scripture was written." Not exactly. "Event revelation" is not the same thing as those events recorded in Scripture. In the latter sense, we can note the every day occurrences and say that they keep on happening. Event revelation, which Scripture does record, refers to revelation being given to the corporate church in the form of God working in history to say something new about Christ and the redemption that is found in Christ. The event itself constitutes new revelation. Miracles are included in this category. In order for the Apostles to be able to act as mediums of revelation, they would definitely need a special grace and teaching authority. In stating what the revelation was, they would have to state it infallibly. It also follows that this teaching would have to be transmitted through the Church, in some form, inerrantly. This does not mean that some cannot fall from the Church, or that some parts of the Church cannot get doctrine wrong and then repent. It does mean that the true faith will always be in existence somewhere and that, in the end, the Church will be shown to have been incapable of ultimately falling. But the grace given to the Apostles is not the same as that given to the Church in general. You reference the Apostolic grace by saying, "The only source of such a grace could be His work on the cross." Which is true. Your next sentence is, "As I see it, there is no source of grace for the Church save this." Which is also true (both the fact that you see it and what you see). However, your next sentence shows equivocation, "Therefore, once given, this grace cannot be taken away." While it follows that grace in general cannot be taken away, it does not follow that specific aspects of grace, given to the Church for a specific purpose, cannot be taken away. In the case of the Apostles, the effects of the grace given them to be mediums of revelation and to initially declare what the true faith is remain with the Church in the form of Scripture. The necessary grace has not been taken from the Church simply because the Apostolic office is no longer valid.

There is no warrant to say that grace "continues to bring forth events of revelation which are consonant with Scripture and which do not repeat the work Scripture has done." In the first place, "events of revelation" is either too broad a category to have any meaning, or, if it should be taken as "event revelation," it would constitute new revelation. The Church is given the grace to maintain teaching authority, but this is not the same thing as events of revelation outside of Scripture. Both the grace to write Scripture and the grace to teach it come from the same source, but this does not mean that they are independent of one another. There is an order of dependence. The teaching of Scripture is utterly dependent upon the existence of Scripture.

What is the difference between a distinction and a separation? It appears that you’re saying Christ worked one work – salvation – and that work has several parts – two of which are justification and sanctification. Justification is the first part, and then sanctification. In my mind, this is very different from saying that justification and sanctification are two aspects of one work. Saying they are two “aspects” suggests that when you look at the one work a certain way, you see its sanctifying aspect, and when you look at it another way, you see its justifying aspect. One cannot precede the other because they are simply different parts or different faces of a unified whole. We can make a distinction in our minds between sanctification and justification, but only for the sake of understanding. We cannot say they are distinctions arising from distinctions in the work of salvation itself. That suggests, again, that Christ was working two different works on the cross, or that His work had two inherently different purposes instead of just one. It seems to me that if we are to retain the unity of Christ’s work in our own minds, we must think of sanctification and justification as being two different ways of speaking about the same thing.

At any single moment of a person’s life, he is either united with Christ, or he is not. If he is united with Christ, then the work of Christ is either done or being done in him (depending upon how we see that work as being manifested temporally). Thus, he is saved or being saved. If he is saved, then he is also justified and sanctified. If he is being saved, he is being sanctified and being justified. It seems to me that the only way you can posit the possibility that a person might be completely justified but not completely sanctified at a certain moment would be to divide the work of Christ and speak of two separate works or two separate purposes of Christ’s work instead of speaking of Christ’s one work for the single purpose of salvation.

The Romans passage you quote does not justify separating justification and sanctification temporally. All of the elements of the list are past tense. God predestined, He also called, He also justified, and He also glorified. He did not first predestine and then call, but “also.” Sanctification, if it is to represent the present work of God in the life of the believer, cannot sit between justification and glorification in this verse. Both of these things have already happened, and furthermore, there is no reason to believe that they happened in sequence. (Not that I can see, anyway, but I must admit that my Greek is very rusty.)

I interpret Paul to be speaking of the work accomplished in Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. In Christ’s resurrection, the whole Church is present - justified, and glorified. This is an eternal reality which is as much true now as it was in the historical moment of the Resurrection. The question which I think exists between you and I is (excuse me for shouting) “How does this eternal (and therefore non-temporal) reality manifest itself temporally in the lives of individual believers?” Is it manifest as a process or as a simple declaration or what?

” While it follows that grace in general cannot be taken away, it does not follow that specific aspects of grace, given to the Church for a specific purpose, cannot be taken away. In the case of the Apostles, the effects of the grace given them to be mediums of revelation and to initially declare what the true faith is remain with the Church in the form of Scripture. The necessary grace has not been taken from the Church simply because the Apostolic office is no longer valid.”

I have essentially the same problem with this account of revelation that I have with your account of justification and sanctification. The grace we speak of when we speak of the crucifixion was given once, and its purpose was one – namely to bring the Church into unity with Christ, which unity (once perfected) is salvation – the beatific vision – the Bridegroom’s Feast. This grace comes to us by virtue of the eternal reality of Christ’s Incarnation. Because Christ is who He is, and because we human beings stand in a certain relationship to Him, we receive grace unto salvation. The effects of His grace do not change from age to age because it is the same grace fulfilling the same eternal purpose that it was fulfilling in the very beginning - salvation. Christ did not pour out His grace once on the cross for the purpose of salvation, and then pour out additional grace for the sake of Apostolic infallibility, but He poured out His grace in full at the cross and as a result of this grace (whose purpose was salvation and only salvation), the Apostles were infallible. Thus, if the Apostles by entering into the New Covenant and receiving that grace became infallible, the possibility exists that a human being today might become likewise infallible. There is obviously some unfulfilled condition which means that the average member of the covenant remains fallible. Consider, then, what makes the Apostles different from you and I.

It is not relevant, I would contend, that they are authors of Scripture because they had to preach the gospel infallibly before they could write it. The quality of infallibility inhered in the Apostles previous to any particular exercise of infallibility. It was not simply in response to temporal necessity that the Apostles were infallible, but it was a natural (temporal) result of the eternal action of Christ’s Paschal grace. The Apostles were not infallible that they might write the Scriptures. They were infallible, therefore they wrote the Scriptures. Their infallibility was a function of the nature of the eternal covenant, not a function of the vicissitudes of temporal necessity.

We must, then, look elsewhere. Were the Apostles different by nature from you and I? No. They, too, were merely men. Nor did they stand in a different relationship to God’s grace than we do. They, too were sinners in need of salvation and full of personal imperfection.

I would contend that the reason the Apostles were infallible and we are not is that the covenant is not the relationship between Christ and individual members of His Body, but between Christ and His Body as a whole. Thus, the determining factor in what made the Apostles infallible was how they as individuals stood in relation to the Church. Because they were a certain part of the Body, the grace of God manifested itself in them in a way it did not manifest itself in other members.

But you contend that the office of Apostle is no more. I ask, “what is the office of the Apostle?” It is not simply that office to which the work of teaching and leading the Church is given? Perhaps you would add “teaching infallibly” to the mix. But then, please address what I say above.

Again, my criticism of your position is that you treat the work of Christ on the Cross as if it were meant for various purposes instead of a single purpose, and you treat the various aspects of Paschal grace as if they were disjointed and partitioned instead of inseparable and eternal facets of the same work.

” In the case of the Apostles, the effects of the grace given them to be mediums of revelation and to initially declare what the true faith is remain with the Church in the form of Scripture.”

I’m hoping that you will give a convincing explanation of how this is the case instead of what I have outlined above.

” There is no warrant to say that grace ‘continues to bring forth events of revelation which are consonant with Scripture and which do not repeat the work Scripture has done.’”

My account of revelation rests upon a distinction between Christ’s nature as revelation and the events which reveal Christ’s nature. I assert that there is no new revelation in the sense that Christ is who He is and He has given Himself entirely. One cannot say “God is doing a new thing” or “God is saying a new thing” because He has said and done all there is to say and do in His Divine Word – that is, in Christ (the Scriptures are only called the word of God by analogy). But there is new revelation in the sense that there are new events which communicate that which has already been communicated in new ways. When you read the Scriptures one morning, and then the next morning, those are two separate events which reveal the nature of Christ. God continues to reveal Himself, but He does not reveal anything new. Neither, however, do you repeat the work of Scripture when you read the Scripture. The event of writing Scripture and the event of reading Scripture are two separate events which reveal the same unchanging thing.

Just so, the life of St. Francis of Assisi reveals the nature of Christ because Christ molded Assisi into His image. Nothing is revealed in the life of St. Francis that is not also revealed in Scripture, but the two modes of revelation are very different, and they serve very different purposes.

I think you can accept this idea even if you don’t care for the way I speak of it. I think the main disagreement between us concerns the purpose of Scripture. You seem to view it as a propositional foundation something like Descartes’ cogito. I view it as a corner stone. The foundation is Christ Himself and His covenant with the Church. The gospel is not simpley a proposition or set of propositions, but a life we are called to embrace. This life precedes and gives substance to the event of Scripture which is a part of it and which reveals it. But this life continually impacts and reveal itself directly in the world. Scripture is one event among many events which reveal it. Nevertheless, because of the excellence of Scripture, every event in the world today which constitutes the continuing impact of Christ on the world casts us back upon the Scripture. If one wishes to accept the life of Christ, one must also accept the Scriptures.

Anyway, that's enough for now. What an engaging conversation!

Andrew- Think of the definition of Chalcedon in which the natures of Christ are distinguished ( in that they cannot be mixed) but not separated. Separation would imply that the Person did not really possess one of the natures, or that there might be two persons. The distinction is more than just two ways of looking at the same thing. Even if they cannot be separated, Christ really does have two different natures. Or, if that doesn't quite capture it, think of how much less painful it is to distinguish between a kneecap and thighbone as opposed to making a separation between the two. By distinguishing between sanctification and justification, rather than separating them, I am acknowledging that they are two aspects of the same overall salvation. On the other hand, if I wish to relate them in terms of what Christ accomplishes on the cross, then I'm going to make a separation. Sanctification is not a monergistic divine act accomplished once and for all on the cross, even though the cross is necessary to it. Sanctification comprises a series of synergistic acts performed in cooperation between the Holy Spirit and the believer.

I will agree that a person either is in Christ or he is not, as long as you don't mean to imply that this situation can switich back and forth. There is only room for one change: from out to in. If he is in Chirst, then the work that Christ accomplished on the cross has already been done in the believer because the believer was in union with Christ in his death and resurrection. Your interpretation of Paul in Romans 8, that he is speaking of the work accomplished in Christ's death and resurrection, is correct. This is what is called the historia salutis. It refers to the objective history of salvation as accomplished in Christ. There is also a future objective anchor when Christ returns. We are justified in Christ in his resurrection; we will be justified at the last judgment. We are glorified in his resurrection; we will be glorified when our own bodies are resurrected. The second anchor must match the first. There is also a subjective component of salvation that happens when the work of Christ is applied to the individual believer. This is called the ordo salutis. This means "order of salvation" and, generally, the components have been seen as being in a temporal sequence. However, as the relationship between the historia salutis and the ordo salutis is being worked out, with the priority moving to the former, the emphasis is shifting to a logical sequence. We can only explain these components in a certain order -justification is based on faith which is based on regeneration- but this does not mean that they can't be given simultaneously.

As to your statement that the whole Church is present in Christ's resurrection, I will grant this provided that it means the invisible church. Union with Christ must be limited to the elect, not to mere profession. We are either raised with Christ, or we are not. And if we have been raised with Christ, then there is no possibility that we will ever be condemned. This is a key point in monergism and the corresponding doctrine of the perseverence of the saints: Have we or have we not been crucifed and raised with Christ? The whole Church is justified and glorified in the resurrection, and it is eternally true that the Church remains justified and glorified. Still, we need to distinguish between state and act. We are in a state of justification because God, at a specific point in history, declared us to be righteous. This takes place objectively in the resurrection of Christ. It takes place subjectively through our faith that results from regeneration. The elements in this list are in the aorist tense (Greek doesn't really have a past tense). The general force of this tense is more of aspect than it is of time. Think of snapshots as opposed to progressive action. God foreknows, predestines, calls, justifies, glorifies, and it's done. These are matters of declaration or decree. They are applied to us in the same way. After the declaration, they have eternal consequences. Sanctification, as I've indicated above, is different. It takes into account the fact that, betwen the subjective application of the benefits of Christ's redemptive work and the return of Christ, we are still living in this world and we are still tied to our corruptible nature. God speaks first, and then works through us and with us to conform us to what he has spoken. Our destiny, which is to dwell forever with God, is determined by what God has said. Although there may be a struggle and some resistence on our part, in the end, those who are truly regenerate will not have failed to willingly cooperate in their sanctification.

You wrote, "I would contend that the reason the Apostles were infallible and we are not is that the covenant is not the relationship between Christ and individual members of His Body, but between Christ and His Body as a whole. Thus, the determining factor in what made the Apostles infallible was how they as individuals stood in relation to the Church. Because they were a certain part of the Body, the grace of God manifested itself in them in a way it did not manifest itself in other members." I like that. let's go with it. Earlier, you spoke of "some unfulfilled condition which means that the average member of the covenant remains fallible." I think you've just found it. This unfulfilled condition is how the Apostles stood in relation to the Church. The office of Apostle is more than teaching and leading the Church, for there are other offices mentioned that share this function. Ephesians 4:11 also includes the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers. Those officers with which the present day church is familiar, pastors and teachers, have not proven themselves to be infallible, so the unfulfilled condition must lie somewhere else. That condition, which applies to two of the teaching offices, can be found in Ephesians 2:20, which says that the household of God, that is, the Church, is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Their individual relationship to the Church is that of being its foundation and this is what accounts for the infallibility of their teaching office. This is a relationship that cannot be repeated. Remember that we are considering their relationship to the whole Church. This is not the Church as it exists on earth at any given moment in time, but it is all the elect of all time. The picture that Paul presents is of a growing building. The foundation of a building only needs to be set in place once.

The Apostles' infallibility had to do with their teaching office as the foundation of the Church. Writing Scripture would just be a part of this. Consider that only four Apostles wrote Scripture (perhaps five depending on who wrote Hebrews). The quality of infallibility in teaching is necessary if an infallible Scripture is to be written; it does not necessarily require that all of the Apostles exercise this quality by writing Scripture. That being said, the writing of Scripture is not just a temporal necessity. Once Scripture is given to the Church, it is hers for as long as she exists. This much is due to the nature of the eternal covenant.

I don't see that I am separating and disjoining the aspects of grace. These all serve the single purpose of Christ's covenant realtionship with his people. Nevertheless, an aspect is not just another perspective for looking at the same thing. We can make mental distinctions as to the results of Christ's work because the various aspects really do differ from one another. If I look at a dog, I see only one dog. I do not dismember the dog by acknowledging that the tail, nose, paws, back, etc. have different functions. They are not just various ways of thinking about a dog. In the same way, being chosen in advance to be like Christ is not the same thing as being declared righteous in Christ, it is not the same thing as being glorifed with Christ, nor is it the same thing as being sanctified in cooperation with the power of the Holy Spirit. These all serve the same ultimate purpose, but this purpose is not fulfilled in a single function. If I decide to bake a cake and proceed with the idea that flour is just another way to think about eggs, I will not succeed. Same intent, same cake, but the component parts need to be recognized and treated for what they are.

I'm not sure how much more of an explanation I can give with regard to the effects of Apostolic grace as mediums of revelation remaining in Scripture. Since Scripture is revelation set in permanent form, I don't think that you're objecting to my contention that Scripture would be one effect of this grace. Probably that I'm saying it's the only way in which revelation is preserved? Anyway, consider the function of the Apostles and Prophets as a foundation and then tell me how this does or doesn't help to answer the question. This will give me a better grasp on how I might better explain things.

Revelation involves communication. It is not sufficient that there be a number of things to be communicated. Consequently, the Second Person of the Trinity cannot have revelation as a part of his eternal nature. Yes, there was communication within the Trinity, but revelation also implies clarification or the communication of what was previously unknown. The Logos, although the Word of God, would not actually possess the nature of revelation until he had become the incarnate Word. Christ is not revelation simply by being who he is in his eternal divine nature; he becomes revelation by virtue of his incarnate nature. He has revealed all that is necessary for us to know about him by living with us on the earth. I will agree that God has said all that there is to say in Christ, but the culmination of this revelation happened in the incarnation (meaning, not the moment of incarnation, but his entire existence as a man on the earth). There is no more revelation in that there is nothing more than what has already been revealed in his earthly life. I get the impression that you're saying that there is no new revelation beyond what is intrinsically a part of Christ's eternal nature. Which could turn out to be a distinction without a difference. We could spend until the second advent witnessing events that tell us something that was never known about Christ and it wouldn't be new because it had always been true of Christ. If so, we're not saying the same thing.

My definition of revelation also seems to be somewhat more precise, some might say too much. I am thinking of revelation proper as the intitial objective act. Thus, the revelation of Christ is complete when he lives on the earth. I am not including subjective realization of what has been revealed. I may find out more and more about Christ each time I read Scripture, but what I discover is no more than has already been revealed in history. My apprehension of revelation does not constitute new revelation. However, I will not object to strongly to using revelation in this subjective sense, so long as it doesn't open the door for saying that what I newly apprehend has any more or different content than what has been given in historical events once for all.

Personally, I think Francis bordered on lunacy, but I really can't hold that against his faith. I do take your point, though. Godly men do, as all Christians should, exemplify Christ. However, to see whether this constitutes revelation, we need to know which is the standard. Do I judge Scripture by Francis, or do I judge Francis by Scripture? Furthermore, is a life conformed to Christ sufficient in itself to serve the intent of revelation, which is to bring people to Christ? I argue that it is not. It may function to draw people in to hear revelation, but, unless Scripture is preached, just seeing a good person will not bring anyone to faith. And unless such a person is seen through the lens of Scripture, there is no way to tell a godly man from one who merely conforms to uiniversal standards of goodness. There is a significant difference. Many adherents of Christless religions know how to be good.

There is no dispute between Christ and His covenant with his Church being the foundation and Scripture being the propositional foundation. We are speaking of foundation in two different yet compatible senses. The gospel is definitely more than a set of propositions, but the life that it is cannot be divorced from propositional truth. Propositional expression is necessary to a way of life. It is necessary to guard against false ways of life. It is necessary to say, "This is the right way of life," or, "This way of life is wrong." Scripture as a mere set of propositions is useless. But, within the context of the Church and of the preached Word, Scripture is always made alive through the work of the Holy Spirit. In defending sola scriptura, my argument has never been proposition vs. life. Rather, I am claiming that all expressions of life, or so called life, are described or proscribed by way of a proposition. Anything that you can see done or believe can be expressed by way of a proposition. Those who reject sola scriptura are not recognizing the existenece of a larger fabric of life than can be contained in the propositions of Scripture; they are postulating a larger set of propositions than is contained in or can be inferred from Scripture. This is dangerous.

"Those who reject sola scriptura are not recognizing the existenece of a larger fabric of life than can be contained in the propositions of Scripture; they are postulating a larger set of propositions than is contained in or can be inferred from Scripture. This is dangerous."

I would argue that the former is what the Catholics and Orthodox are positing, not the latter. Tradition (including Scripture) is sacred and normative because it is the manifestation of that larger fabric of life. The idea is that, while the Scriptures and the Church Fathers and so forth present us with propositions, these propositions are only important insofar as they contribute to the further expression and fertility of that which they express. They are not the foundation of that which they express. The only foundation of the life of the Church is Christ Himself. What Catholics and Orthodox reject when they reject sola scriptura is the idea that propositions are foundational at all. Rather, they are derivative of and simultaneous with all the other parts of that larger life just as those other parts are (to a certain extent) derivative of and simultaneous with Scripture. And it all flows from the true foundation, which is Christ.

Just as one member of the Body of Christ necessarily stands in a certain relationship to every other member of the Body but is founded only on Christ, Scripture is one part among many in the life of the Church. It has a certain function, but that function is not to be the prerequisite of the other parts of the Church’s life. The only prerequisite is Christ. Scripture is indispensable not because it is foundational but because it is integral – because it is tied in to the other elements of the Church’s life in such an intimate way that they would be incomplete and possibly non-functional without it. And vice-versa. We cannot read Scripture accurately or faithfully unless we accept every element of the Church’s life along with it.

When Catholics and Orthodox reject sola scriptura, they are rejecting the idea that you can hold Scripture up as an independent standard by which to judge the life of the Church – not because it is not normative but because it is not independent or foundational. It is tied in with all the things we have learned from two thousand years of living the things it describes. An orthodox Catholic may very well argue that Scripture is formally sufficient – i.e. that every true doctrine is contained within or implied by the Scriptures, but the Catholics and Orthodox reject the idea that Scripture is actually sufficient. In other words, it’s not the idea that Scripture has all the answers that is odious, but the idea that someone would feel justified in using it to check the Church’s work as if it were the back of a math textbook. Scripture is only normative as an organic part of the life of the Church. Apart from that life – apart from the Living Tradition – it is made vain.

If any person or group of persons within or outside of the Church presumes to judge the beliefs and practices of the rest of the Church on the authority of Scripture alone, such a one has used Scripture in a way that is contrary to its nature. Scripture must in every way be tied to the Church. It must be read and prayed communally. The believer who reads it must be open not only to the words of Scripture but to the words of his brethren. If the two seem to him to conflict, then that is not a moment for condemnation but for humble conversation. For such a one there are only three possibilities 1) that one must convince his brother, 2) that one must be convinced, or 3) that one must appeal for decision to those in whom the Church has invested authority to decide such matters. One may not stand on the Scriptures and condemn others -especially not those to whom authority had been given to teach and lead the Church. To do so indicates that one has decided to read the Scriptures outside of the communion of love and forebearance which is at the heart of Scriptures.

“I may find out more and more about Christ each time I read Scripture, but what I discover is no more than has already been revealed in history.”

My assertion is that it only makes sense to speak of revelation as that which is being revealed (Christ) and the subjective apprehension of that which is being revealed. Subject and object. What is and is not a medium between subject and object is defined by the relation between subject and object. Thus, insofar as Christ is who He is, He is revelation – as you say, there is communication between the members of the Trinity. Christ is continually communicating who He is. If I become able to apprehend that self-communication, subjective revelation will take place. The medium is an event or object which changes a person in such a way that said person is then able to apprehend Christ’s self-revelation. Because there is a subjective apprehension of the Revelation, your reading of Scripture is as much a medium of Christ’s revelation as the miracle at Cana is. It is not qualitatively different. It may be quantitatively different (if we can speak in such terms of revelation); it may be better or worse for whatever reason, but essentially the same thing is happening.

The miracle at Cana prepares for the written account of the miracle, which prepares for your reading of that account. But these three are separate events which are only in causal sequence by virtue of an eternal reality – i.e. the Being of Christ. In other words, the Scriptural account of Cana is made possible by the event of the miracle, but it is made actual by the self-Revelation of Christ at the moment of writing. Just so, your apprehension of Christ is made possible by Scripture, but actual by Christ’s self-Revelation at the moment of reading. Scripture is not significant insofar as it is something you see, but rather insofar as it makes you open to seeing something else – i.e. Christ’s eternal self-Revelation. It is not the historical reality of Cana which is finally significant, but the eternal reality of Christ’s Being. The moment and event of your apprehension of Christ is not the miracle at Cana, nor the account of that miracle, but your reading of that account. This is the medium, and even this is futile except in that it changes you in such a way as to make you open to that which does not change and is at all moments Revelation.

Thus, the events of Christ’s life are not the final events of revelation. They are normative because they are the first events of revelation and later events may not be called events of revelation if they contradict the first events. However, the sufficient cause for an event of revelation remains in place – Christ remains by nature self-revealing and His presence continues with us not merely figuratively but actually. Whether or not an event of revelation occurs depends upon the subjective possibilities of apprehension – i.e. upon whether or not we are willing and able to see Him.

” However, I will not object to strongly to using revelation in this subjective sense, so long as it doesn't open the door for saying that what I newly apprehend has any more or different content than what has been given in historical events once for all.”

I would not suggest such a thing. In each subjective instance, what is being revealed is Christ Himself. The only contention I make is that the miracle at Cana does not add anything to the revelation made at the nativity. In each case, what is revealed is Christ in His wholeness. The only thing that is added to is the maturity of Christ’s followers and of their vision of Christ. We learn better ways of speaking about Christ and learn to avoid certain mistakes which humans are prone to making about Him, but we gain no new information.

“We could spend until the second advent witnessing events that tell us something that was never known about Christ and it wouldn't be new because it had always been true of Christ.”

As I see it, this possibility is excluded because the individual events of revelation do not witness to individual pieces of information about Christ, but to the wholeness of Christ. From the very first moment, Christ was known as who He is – i.e. by Mary and Joseph. But if we are to know who He is, we must see Him just as they did. We see nothing new, but we see what they saw with different eyes, and so speak differently and think differently about what we see. And if the things we say are well-said and spoken in obedience to Christ, those who also see Christ will receive them as that which they already knew but were unable to understand clearly.

“If I look at a dog, I see only one dog. I do not dismember the dog by acknowledging that the tail, nose, paws, back, etc. have different functions.”

No, but the dog is dismembered if, at a certain moment, he has a whole nose but not a whole back. Imagine a dog whose head is that of a full grown dog but whose body is otherwise that of an embryo at the earliest stages of life. If a dog is an entirely embryo at the earliest stages, it is whole and unified. If a dog is entirely a full-grown dog, it is whole and unified, but if part of a dog is full-grown and part is in-process, it is a monstrosity.

I do not object to making a distinction in the mind concerning sanctification and justification. I do, however, object to saying that they are two fundamentally dissimilar things, because if this is the case, they cannot be elements of the same work. If sanctification is a synergistic process but justification is not, then they are truly separate and not merely distinct.

Christ has two distinct, inseparable natures, but they are not fundamentally dissimilar. Rather, human nature is made in the image of the Divine nature, and so there is an eternal compatibility.

And again, I object to the idea that sanctification and justification are temporally separate (i.e. that justification precedes sanctification) because any given moment stands in the same relation to the eternal as any other moment. Christ saves us by the eternal outpouring of grace. At any two given moments, the temporal ramifications of that grace in an individual life may be accidentally different, but they will be fundamentally the same. Thus, if the action of grace is a process at one moment, it is a process at every other moment. If it is a final, unalterable declaration at one moment, it will be a final declaration at every other moment. It will not be a declaration at one moment and then a process the next. God does not change from one moment to the next, man’s nature does not change (except once at the point of union with Christ), and time does not change. What changes except the confluence of circumstances? How can the temporal action of grace be a final declaration at one moment and a process the next?

Andrew- I thought the comment section was getting too long for one post so my response is over here.